PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help needed - County Court N1 forms received
Bbsirdar
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 17:07
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,803



Wonder wether it’s time to admit defeat and pay or hold out and go to court.

In summary, we got a ticket for parking over the marked lines in a free car park at a shopping centre. The bays are stupidly small and larger 4x4s had shuffled everyone along a bit. When we came out they’d gone and it looked like we’d parked badly.

I’m a member of the UK Armed Forces and had recently changed location and (my bad) I hadn’t changed the registration documentation to our new address so didn’t get any of the original fines/ charge letters so knew nothing about this.

Once I had re registered the car at our new address I started getting letters demanding final payment, debt collectors, court threats etc, the usual stuff. The option for appeal had gone and it was pay £185 or nothing. These I ignored.

Until we got the court papers we weren’t even sure what date the charge applied to.
In defence, and it isn’t much
I wasn’t the driver
The bays are too small( we were in a mini) we didn’t have a lot of choice the space available meant you had to straddle the lines
It was a free car park, no meters or obvious signs that We were aware of and we had no knowledge of any implied conditions.
The company pushing this is UKCPS, I have never contacted them in any capacity and was just calling their bluff that they wouldn’t pursue to County Court.

At the end of the day, I need an intact credit rating but I don’t feel £185 reflects a fair charge for being a few centimetres over the lines at a retail park because the bays are stupidly small and not fit for purpose.

Any thoughts on a way forward and shall I have my day in court?

Thanks for any advice you might have.

This post has been edited by Bbsirdar: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 17:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 09:37
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What is the date of issue of the claim form?
There is nothing wrong with ACKNOWLEDING SERVICE, online - do that now. Today. Do not contest jurisdiction unless you are outisde of E&W

Pretty sure UKCPS dont manage Keepr liability under POFA - others can confirm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 10:15
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



also, when acknowledging service, leave the defence box entirely empty for now. You will then have 33 days from the date of issue of the claim for the court to receive your defence.

Also, your credit rating can't be affected unless you lose at court, and then don't pay up within a month of judgement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbsirdar
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 16:06
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,803



Thanks for the replies, looks like I will go along for the ride and see them in court. I assume the costs won’t increase significantly if I lose? The £185 already includes the court fees.

The date of the claim is 28 Sept
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 16:10
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
I assume the costs won’t increase significantly if I lose?


Correct, its small claims so not a lot can be added on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Albert Ross
post Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 16:20
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,640
Joined: 30 May 2013
Member No.: 62,328



I am pretty sure that in the Beavis case this was one of the scenarios quizzed by one of the Lords.

A whole row of over the line...£££s


--------------------
The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 07:08
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



An extra £25 is the most that should be added on by the claimant - thats to pay for the hearing.

Once acknowledged its 33 days from the 28.09.2018
You MUST read up

MSE forum -> NEWBIES thread -> post 2
READ IT. Not skim, READ. Read again
Then bookmark it
ANY quesiton you have on process, check there first


This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 07:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbsirdar
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 10:22
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,803



Thanks all for the replies, it is now nearly time to submit my defence and I’m struggling. Nothing seams to fit my circumstances in that I’d moved and not informed DVLA in good time.

My basic defence is I’m the keeper not the driver and that the signs were genuinely not obvious. Any help would be massively appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bbsirdar
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 10:35
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,803



I found this defence from 2016 for a similar occurrence, has there been many changes in the last 2 years or would something along these lines still work.

The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant (UKCPS) for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
The signage supposedly setting out the contract terms is not sufficiently prominent to be considered the basis for an implied contract between the driver and UKCPS.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, June 2013 states:
“18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”

In respect of this guidance, the signage used by UKCPS, despite claiming to be approved by the BPA, is clearly inadequate as:
There are no signs at the entrance to the car park identifying it as one managed by UKCPS (see attached image and further that there are terms and conditions of using it.
The signs that do exist are small, placed higher than can be considered in-view from within a car and use inconsistent typography of various small sizes rather than following a ‘standard format’.
Precedent for such an implied contract being improperly formed on the basis of UKCPS’s inadequate signage has been clearly judged upon previously. I cite the 14/4/2014 UKCPS -v- Gaskell case (3QZ55265) at Cardiff where at #43 the Judge states "As to the first question posed [under paragraph 16 above] "(a) was this defendant contractually bound?" therefore repeat my conclusion that the signs in this case were not sufficiently prominently and clearly positioned and displayed to sustain the contention that the defendant consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his attracting the parking charge levied. Therefore the defendant in the particular circumstances was not contractually bound."
UKCPS have continued to use similar small and confusing signs since this ruling in 2014.
If there was a contract, which is denied, it would be a unilateral contract imposed on the driver by a party with whom there has been no negotiation over the terms. This would not be a fair contract given such inequality of arms and therefore a breach of the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulations, various sections.
It would not be just nor equitable to be forced into a purported contract by entry onto land when there is no opportunity to read or have the terms presented to me in advance - I refer to Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949), a leading precedent on such.
In consideration of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, no evidence has been supplied by UKCPS to me, the registered keeper, that shows the vehicle’s parked location in relation to any signs on the site which could enable me to feel duty-bound to disclose the drivers information on the basis that they had parked in an area covered by them and therefore knowingly entered into a contract with UKCPS. Furthermore, as the registered keeper I am not liable for any charges beyond the original £100 which was the original charge amount supposedly levied against the driver, even if that was ruled fair & reasonable. The extra charge of £50 for collection fees is therefore disputed also.
The £100 parking charge levied is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss (GPEOL) incurred by the landowner. Given that an hour’s free parking is allowed at this site, and the alleged parking was not in breach of this, being less than 10 minutes in duration, it is difficult to see where there is any actual loss resulting from the driver’s action and therefore it is difficult to see how a figure as high as £100 (or, indeed, any figure) can be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Since UKCPS is not the landowner, their claim can only be for either damages or a penalty as no VAT appears to being applied. If the claimed sum is a contractual charge VAT would have to be chargeable.
There can be no relevant contract with UKCPS, any purported contract would be with the landowner as UKCPS describe themselves on the signage as acting on behalf of this party. Any claim should be in the name of the landowner not UKCPS.
I have no sight of any evidence that a contract with the landowner that authorises UKCPS to offer contracts for parking in the landowner’s name exists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, 2018 onwards

It isnt a defence that you moved - thats just why there was no appeal from you, the keeper

Have they complied with POFA? If they have NOT done so, then your defence is aboslute - you cannot be liable for a breahc of the DRIVERS contract
A secondary defence, ie "in the alternative", your point aboutthe contract supposedly conveyed by signage would go in
You then have that you dont believe they have any standing to offer contratcs in their name - this is the "show us your contract with the landowner" section

Then, if they have adsded on random charges - the extra £85 is above what POFA would make you liable for
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 10:20
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Take out the GPEOL paragraph

The Supreme Court has sunk this as a defence point
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 19:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (Bbsirdar @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 11:22) *
Thanks all for the replies, it is now nearly time to submit my defence and I’m struggling. Nothing seams to fit my circumstances in that I’d moved and not informed DVLA in good time.

My basic defence is I’m the keeper not the driver and that the signs were genuinely not obvious. Any help would be massively appreciated


So use one of bargepole's concise defences from the 2nd post of the MSE NEWBIES thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

Stop looking at old threads, new ones are here and on MSE for you to use, and bargepole's concise defence templates shown there in the 2nd post, are about unclear signs and about someone who was not the driver...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:44
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here